Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They Thought They Were Free (1955)

press.uchicago.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 545 posts

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#531

Post by permo-w »

rixed wrote: post #530
permo-w wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

such a bizarre thing to think. politics and even more so economics are literally made up of the way people act I know it's a bit rude to say this, but I don't believe deep down you actually think this. more likely you've just got a funny idea about what's offensive or prejudiced that's blocking you from looking at this rationally

Err, no. Politics is the art of manipulating people so they act differently than what they would be inclined to. Modern politics is made possible by psychology and sociology (that and the more traditional use of violence of course), and a lot of work goes into it. Regarding economics, I don't know where to start. Economy is global and its laws are the same everywhere; certainly national policies influence it, but the…

the reason I'm finding this hard to engage with in an ideal manner is because what you're saying feels so far from reality that I struggle to proportion my response properly. the implication of what you're suggesting is that people's actions, personalities and personal choices do not make up their economic choices, and/or economic choices do not make up a large proportion of the economy.

- the level of private consumption in a country is in massive part dictated by how much people choose to consume vs save. this is quite obviously a choice based on personality and norm

- the price level of goods is in large part dictated by what business owners believe people will pay, and how much people are willing to pay. again, both in large part dictated by personality and culture and norm

- wage rates are in large part dictated by what people demand for those jobs, and what business owners are willing to pay. both of these things are in large part dictated by average of people's personality traits in that country

more specifically, let's look at a classic economic case study, Argentina vs Japan: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/b6q69y/the_econo... this is a perfect case of two countries trying not to have their economics dictated by national character, and failing anyway.

essentially what you're trying to claim is that culture and personality does not affect how people act economically. weird and provably wrong principles someone made up one day like "Economy is global and its laws are the same everywhere" is a key example of why economics is not a science, and economists are generally not trusted

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#532

Post by thomassmith65 »

nerdponx wrote: post #529
thomassmith65 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe desperation is warranted, or maybe social media has distorted reality. Either way, it's beside the point: if there is one lesson to remember from the 20th Century it is 'never support an authoritarian'.

> Maybe desperation is warranted, or maybe social media has distorted reality. Some parts of the country never really recovered from 2008. Obama took the smug liberal approach of telling people it was all over when it clearly was not all over. The country was primed for the Tea Party to step in and offer the promise of a remedy. You and I both know that the remedy was bunk, and it was just a rebranding of the same ol…

The points about America can be discarded wholesale because 21st century authoritarianism is a global phenomenon.

Social media became a major force after 2010, and indiscriminately affects nations around the world.

Since the nations with rising authoritarian movements have little else in common, social media clearly is the cause.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#533

Post by throw10920 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #328
mcfunley wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your point, the thing that jumped out at me reading this book is how familiar the German characters are. People have loved to imagine that the Nazi era in Germany was so anomalous it could never happen again. But no, the Germans were just like us.

This is my problem with a lot of literature and movies. The Nazis are always unfathomably evil, when in reality, most of them were just people doing their jobs. I read Eichmann in Jerusalem recently, and the reality is that what Eichmann did was incredibly mundane for the most part. There is someone in ICE right now doing exactly what Eichmann was doing: Coordinating roundups of people made "illegal" by law, and then…

> Coordinating roundups of people made "illegal" by law

It's not "illegal", it's just illegal. The US does not have open borders. It's illegal to cross without a visa or some other authorization. That's a fact, and in fact the law is a very reasonable one, because people who are knowledgeable about how humans work generally understand that open borders are a bad idea.

> There is someone in ICE right now doing exactly what Eichmann was doing [...] and then transporting them to foreign camps and foreign countries.

Is this meant to make it sound like it's somehow bad? If someone breaks the law, they deserve to be punished. In the case of people who entered the country illegally, the sane and rational thing to do is remove them from the country. This is, in fact, one of the most logical punishments imaginable, up there with being forced to leave while trespassing and being required to return stolen property.

Your comment is real "Hitler breathed air, and this other guy breathed air, therefore this other guy is bad because he's like Hitler" levels of manipulative suggestion that's completely devoid of any sort of points or content whatsoever.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#534

Post by rixed »

permo-w wrote: post #531
rixed wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, no. Politics is the art of manipulating people so they act differently than what they would be inclined to. Modern politics is made possible by psychology and sociology (that and the more traditional use of violence of course), and a lot of work goes into it. Regarding economics, I don't know where to start. Economy is global and its laws are the same everywhere; certainly national policies influence it, but the…

the reason I'm finding this hard to engage with in an ideal manner is because what you're saying feels so far from reality that I struggle to proportion my response properly. the implication of what you're suggesting is that people's actions, personalities and personal choices do not make up their economic choices, and/or economic choices do not make up a large proportion of the economy. - the level of private consum…

Most people in the world have very little economic agency. They don't "choose" to consume rather than to save, they just can't save. And even if the consumer were allmighty, in most countries the state itself is spending a huge portion of the money (https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/...), to say nothing about other big institutions. And I doubt those soulless institutions let themselves be influenced by the local cultural traits.

Regarding the establishment of prices, there are so many schools of thoughts! Those who believe rarity is what matters, those who believe that the marginal price is what matter, or the time to produce, or power relationships, or a target profit rate, etc... I personnaly believe that all of this plays a role, but I regard any theory based on an allmight homo-economicus as hopeless, disproven times and times over, and mostly an ideological attempt to blame shit on the people and justify privileges.

Wages, like any prices, are rarely decided in practice. "dictated by what people demand"? In which theorical world? Most people are not even asked what compensation they expect. There is a market that decide what a "reasonable salary" should be for any job in any place, and this market is set by a lot of regulations, by the level of unemployment, the cost of living, etc, all of which are not decided by anyone.

What I'm claiming is that there exist such rules as economical rules, sociological rules, that very severely limits whatever agency individuals can have on the economy and society.

So of course one can say "any institution is just made of people", and ultimately decompose everything into individual actions. Sure, but it obscures the laws rather than makes them apparent; Like, say, you can reduce the weather as just a bunch of molecules jiggling arround, but good luck understanding weather patterns then. Is it just what our disagreement is about?

The link to outline.com is dead by the way.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#535

Post by nerdponx »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #532
nerdponx wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe desperation is warranted, or maybe social media has distorted reality. Some parts of the country never really recovered from 2008. Obama took the smug liberal approach of telling people it was all over when it clearly was not all over. The country was primed for the Tea Party to step in and offer the promise of a remedy. You and I both know that the remedy was bunk, and it was just a rebranding of the same ol…

The points about America can be discarded wholesale because 21st century authoritarianism is a global phenomenon. Social media became a major force after 2010, and indiscriminately affects nations around the world. Since the nations with rising authoritarian movements have little else in common, social media clearly is the cause.

I don't think it follows at all that social media is the cause. It's clearly an enabling factor, especially in places that didn't already have a healthy right wing media like the USA. The common cause is long-standing discontent over economic issues, unaddressed by liberal or center-left institutions, and a right wing eager to regain power by fomenting culture war.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#536

Post by stevenwoo »

tobias3 wrote: post #125
nerdponx wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of reason is actually becoming more frequently used to justify things. For years, the right wing propaganda machine has been establishing the concept that conservatism and America as a whole is besieged by authoritarian leftists and their smug out-of-outch enablers the liberals. THEY are the authoritarians and they are seeking to destroy America. WE are its defenders, and in the face of existential threat,…

Yes, and then they call this openly a Reichstag fire moment and people still don't get the parallels. And back then there was a proper systems conflict. People like Krupp actually had to fear being disowned by communists.

The elevation of Charlie Kirk to sainthood rhymes with Horst Wessel’s death being used to make legitimate targets of all enemies of the German state.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#537

Post by ProllyInfamous »

DavidPiper wrote: post #103

I listened to the audio book a few months back - probably the last time it appeared on HN, I'm not sure how else I would have stumbled across it. It's well worth the time. I remember particularly the teacher's statement that (paraphrasing, it's been a while) "if I could not resist, it means that anyone else of my station or below could also not resist". The idea that an admission of impotence is not just a personal n…

>"if I could not resist, it means that anyone else of my station or below could also not resist"

"All ten of my friends gladly confess this crime of having been Germans in Germany." —p164

Related quote, with the teacher and the taylor (opposite ends of "Nazi spectrum") in agreement that the pro-Nazi mentality was pervasive.

>"Adolf Hitler was good for Germany—in my [ten] friends' view—up until 1943, 1941, or 1939, depending upon the individual" –p69

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#538

Post by thomassmith65 »

nerdponx wrote: post #535
thomassmith65 wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The points about America can be discarded wholesale because 21st century authoritarianism is a global phenomenon. Social media became a major force after 2010, and indiscriminately affects nations around the world. Since the nations with rising authoritarian movements have little else in common, social media clearly is the cause.

I don't think it follows at all that social media is the cause . It's clearly an enabling factor, especially in places that didn't already have a healthy right wing media like the USA. The common cause is long-standing discontent over economic issues, unaddressed by liberal or center-left institutions, and a right wing eager to regain power by fomenting culture war.

There is long-standing discontent over economic issues, yet the people are equally furious about toxic 5G radio towers, and a thousand other delusions.

The public, before social media, was better informed about the world. They have access to much more information now, but that means little when the information they consume first has been sharted out the asshole of some idiot podcaster.

For various reasons, social media incentivizes knee-jerk antiestablishment takes: "Get angry! The MSM is hiding the horrible truth we are about to share with you! Like and subscribe or be kept under their control!" That is why any nation with social media, and a sufficient number of gullible citizens, tends towards violent revolution and pugilistic leadership.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#539

Post by permo-w »

rixed wrote: post #534
permo-w wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the reason I'm finding this hard to engage with in an ideal manner is because what you're saying feels so far from reality that I struggle to proportion my response properly. the implication of what you're suggesting is that people's actions, personalities and personal choices do not make up their economic choices, and/or economic choices do not make up a large proportion of the economy. - the level of private consum…

Most people in the world have very little economic agency. They don't "choose" to consume rather than to save, they just can't save. And even if the consumer were allmighty, in most countries the state itself is spending a huge portion of the money ( https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/... ), to say nothing about other big institutions. And I doubt those soulless institutions let themselves be…

>I regard any theory based on an allmight homo-economicus as hopeless, disproven times and times over, and mostly an ideological attempt to blame shit on the people and justify privileges.

and here we are. this is what I was trying to express. I don't believe you actually don't believe that the sum of human actions is not made up of human actions, that essentially being what you've been trying to argue

I think you believe that it's nicer and less prejudiced, less harsh, to not "blame" people for the actions of their culture, and you're artificially constructing arguments to support that emotional conclusion. I completely get it, it's difficult to conscion that a particular culture might be more prone to authoritarianism, or careful economic management, or crime, or other, but, unfortunately, that is the case. what you're missing in the equation is that culture, national character, isn't people's fault. it exists, and it dictates matters, but people aren't to blame for it. you don't choose the culture you grow up in, and it shouldn't be anathema to describe cultures because you feel like it's blaming people. people are not molecules in a box, and yes, that is where we're disagreeing, because you think that's a viable analogy when it's not, when it's provably not. and anyway, even if it were a viable analogy, molecules in a box act differently when they're different molecules

the rest of your comment is essentially just mentally delegation to outside theories, without actually using your own brain to address the reality. I'll address this paragraph though:

>Wages, like any prices, are rarely decided in practice. "dictated by what people demand"? In which theorical world? Most people are not even asked what compensation they expect. There is a market that decide what a "reasonable salary" should be for any job in any place, and this market is set by a lot of regulations, by the level of unemployment, the cost of living, etc, all of which are not decided by anyone.

>"dictated by what people demand"

first of all, this quote is out of context, and the full quote says "in large part". secondly, the reason this is so is because to a large degree, when there is demand for a job, then businesses will try to fill that demand. if people do not want to do that job, or there are not enough people educated to do that job, then--barring migration--what happens to the wages for that job? I do not have to answer that for you, I'm sure. so here we have a perfect example of culture and personality--people's particular educations and desires for particular jobs--either dictating wage levels, or dictating part of the level of migration. you may say that people's ability to dictate like this is reliant on them being comfortable and not being forced to take whatever job will keep them alive, and that's another part of the equation, but it's irrelevant, because people's cultures and personalities are still a huge part of it

>The link to outline.com is dead by the way.

the article is an economist piece in the top reddit comment in the link

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#540

Post by Anamon »

dluan wrote: post #484

Reading this in China, it's hard not to see the similarities with the cultural revolution, but there seems to be a big difference with how the trauma lasted among those who survived. At least in China, the primary shared memory is that everyone was a common victim, that the cultural revolution was this brutal madness and frenzied state that was exacted on everybody, even if you were also a participant and threw some…

Wasn't the end of Estado novo famously low-violence? It's called the Carnation Revolution because there were a lot more flowers than bullets.

The overall statistics are undeniable, though. I take some comfort in the fact that no two macropolitical situations are ever really identical, and in my naïve belief that overall, humanity still learns a tiny little sliver from the past.

Post reply on HN